wanted: a plan to stabilize iraq - Page 2 - P2P-Zone

Sinner · 07-03-06, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

WMD that have never been found? Wait!!!, they will say that those weapons have been hidden in Iran, wouldn't be surprised if Bush would pull this awful lie off.

Keep up with the times - why would the USA need to say that? There are better reasons then that to go to war with Iran.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

He said the United States joins "other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

That is the only reason the world needs. No way will Iran be allowed to have nukes. No way in Hell.

theknife · 07-03-06, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinner

That is the only reason the world needs. No way will Iran be allowed to have nukes. No way in Hell.

i love tough guy wingnut rhetoric

first question is: why would you believe the Bush administration on this matter? what part of the last five years where you not paying attention to?

next question is: why is a nuclear Iran so unthinkable? why will the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) not be as an effective a deterrent for Iran as it has been for every other nuclear power?

third question: since we have been unable to successfully conclude either the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts, what on earth makes you think the US could successfully open and close a third front?

i'm not in favor of Iran going nuclear but as i listen to the drumbeats of an administration with zero foreign policy credibility, it sounds a lot like Iraq all over again - and you know how that turned out.

albed · 07-03-06, 04:58 PM

I love pea brained liberals who label things they can't comprehend "unthinkable".

People with higher brain function actually can think about a nuclear armed Iran and thus conclude that it shouldn't be allowed.

Sinner · 07-03-06, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theknife

i love tough guy wingnut rhetoric

first question is: why would you believe the Bush administration on this matter? what part of the last five years where you not paying attention to?

I don’t have to believe Bush or need too for that matter, many countries are concerned, mostly members of the UN, even Russia is weighing on this problem. This is not just a USA problem, but when you are the World Police ie. A Superpower, sometimes you need to take the lead.

Quote:

next question is: why is a nuclear Iran so unthinkable? why will the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) not be as an effective a deterrent for Iran as it has been for every other nuclear power?

There are many reasons why the world should fear Iran having nuclear weapons, I don’t like any country to have them but some do, what is done is done, To be honest if they made them I would not feel any more un-safe. Where I live there will be no nuclear attacks. If I lived in Israel or the middle-east I would have great concern.

Quote:

third question: since we have been unable to successfully conclude either the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts, what on earth makes you think the US could successfully open and close a third front?

The USA would need to lead a UN coalition and I think when it comes to nuclear weapons it should not be a problem. Besides, Israel will never let it happen, if nothing is done there will be a repeat of what they did to Iraq, this time though I think the consequences from other Islamic countries will be a lot different.

Quote:

i'm not in favor of Iran going nuclear but as i listen to the drumbeats of an administration with zero foreign policy credibility, it sounds a lot like Iraq all over again - and you know how that turned out.

I am not in favor of a war with Iran at all, and this should not be a USA decision, it should come from the UN members countries as a whole.

These aren’t friendly streets………

Mazer · 07-03-06, 06:40 PM

I've read a few analyses on a possible war with Iran and almost everyone who looks closely at the issue concludes that it would be suicidal to invade Iran. Too many mountains, too many nooks and crannies to sweep, and the majority of Iranians lives in the densly populated northern reigion around Tehran, so any fight there is sure to cause massive amounts of collateral damage. Even arial bombardment is risky, and cruise missile attacks, while marginally safer for the population, would not do enough damage. The military option in Iran is very undesirable, and nobody knows this better than the president and his staff. Believe me, Bush doesn't want war with Iran and he won't be pushing for it any time soon.

Besides, if we ever looked like we were trying to take over the population of Iran we'd be legitimizing their claims that America want's to destroy Islam. That wouldn't accomplish anything. No, the only way to win is to get Iran to voluntarily give up on its nuclear weapons program through diplomacy. And even though military force won't be needed, an American military presence along the Iran-Iraq border would definitly help our position at the table. Perhaps invading Iraq was the only way the international community was ever going to get Iran to heed its demands.

miss_silver · 07-03-06, 11:44 PM

Mazer, I hope sincerly you are right on this one.

Sinner · 08-03-06, 12:21 PM

Signs That the United States is About to Bomb Iran

Quote:

by James Dunnigan

Before any major military operation, there are always tell tale signs. With all the talk about Israel or the United States bombing Iran's nuclear weapons program, it would be wise to check for the signs before taking the pundit prattle too seriously.

The U.S. Navy stages a "surge exercise" and moves six carrier battle groups into the Indian Ocean.

A "regularly scheduled exercise" moves Patriot Missile Batteies to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. These exercises happen from time to time, but if they happen when other things are happening…

Movement of B-52 and B1B bombers to the island of Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean).

Deployment of F117 stealth bombers and F-22 fighters to anywhere in the Persian Gulf.

Deployment of B-2 Stealth Bombers to Guam, where there are special facilities for maintaining these aircraft.

Lockdown of Whitman Air Force Base (where most B-2 bombers are stationed) in Missouri.

Increased delivery of Pizza to Pentagon

Sudden loss of cell service near some air force bases (from which heavy bombers would depart). At the same time, there would be sightings of Middle Eastern looking guys around these bases, trying to get their cell phones to work, while being observed by what appears to be FBI agents.

Deployment of KC-135/KC-10 aerial tankers to Diego Garcia, Guam and the Persian Gulf.

America asks nations neighboring Iran for basing and over flight rights.

These warning signs are no secret, and intelligence officers regularly run down their check lists. As a result, nations will sometimes stage a false alert by deliberately performing many of the items on someone's check list, with no intention of following through.

JackSpratts · 08-03-06, 03:48 PM

oh boy, another war! cool!

- js.

Mazer · 08-03-06, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinner

Signs That the United States is About to Bomb Iran

That's interesting, Sinner. I personally wouldn't know if any of these things happened myself. I've heard, though, that if Israel wanted to begin bombing they could start now, with or without asking for fly-over permission from Turkey first. For all we know they could be doing it already.

son · 10-03-06, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

I hear ya, just saying that some people don't see the humor in it. It's all good with me, and welcome to NU.

ok for one, it wasnt supposed to be humerous, it was just a statement..
i know this is a forum about politics, and strong political opinions. obviously i know some people wont see the humor in it.

maybe you shold read it again......

Mazer · 10-03-06, 11:36 PM

It's just difficult to take that coment seriously. Apologize to the dead soldiers in their graves? Come on, that won't solve our problems. It might satisfy your need to see the president humilated, but other than that what purpose would it serve? I had to assume you were joking or else I would have had to pity you.

Apologies are only useful to those who are able to hear them, the families of the soliders for instance. But in my opinion it would only cheapen the sacrifices of the soldiers and deepen the sorrow of their families if they were served with an empty apology by a political figurehead. It's best for everyone if Bush keeps his regrets to himself.

multi · 11-03-06, 12:31 AM

man ,getting an apology from a conservative would be like getting a blowjob from a corpse. you would have to knock out their teeth first...
they can't deal in intangible things like apogogies to dead people
it dont make sense unlike the million$ that get spent on commemorating wardead

its how the rich have been sending people off to war to fight and die for them for centuries...no regrets ..they will be remembered
if they aren't manipulating people they feel they dont exist..
so they just do it with all sorts justifications but you wont hear one ever really apologise...

albed · 11-03-06, 02:38 PM

Keep multi away from the morgues and funeral homes ffs.

I still think the U.S. can bomb countries into submission, like Japan, but no-one's got the guts for it anymore.

Looks like Iran will be another replay of the 'Iraq sanctions' so all the people who kept saying they'd work if they were only given more time can start saying that again for another 12 years.

multi · 11-03-06, 11:15 PM

theres probably more chance of bombing Iran into submission than sanctioning them into submission ..but theres a danger that russia and china might get involved if that happens

maybe some drawn out cold war like stalemate will be needed unless alot of the mid-east becomes uninhabitable for 12 thousand years

what about all this recent nuclear support for india and pakistan coming from US and they want Australia to sell them weapons grade uranium ..is this some sort of pre-conflict exercise to build up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons in that area
to help keep the midlle east in check ?

11-03-06, 12:31 AM	#32
multi Thanks for being with arse Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The other side of the world Posts: 10,343	man ,getting an apology from a conservative would be like getting a blowjob from a corpse. you would have to knock out their teeth first... they can't deal in intangible things like apogogies to dead people it dont make sense unlike the million$ that get spent on commemorating wardead its how the rich have been sending people off to war to fight and die for them for centuries...no regrets ..they will be remembered if they aren't manipulating people they feel they dont exist.. so they just do it with all sorts justifications but you wont hear one ever really apologise... __________________ i beat the internet - the end boss is hard Secret Temple of It

11-03-06, 11:15 PM	#34
multi Thanks for being with arse Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The other side of the world Posts: 10,343	theres probably more chance of bombing Iran into submission than sanctioning them into submission ..but theres a danger that russia and china might get involved if that happens maybe some drawn out cold war like stalemate will be needed unless alot of the mid-east becomes uninhabitable for 12 thousand years what about all this recent nuclear support for india and pakistan coming from US and they want Australia to sell them weapons grade uranium ..is this some sort of pre-conflict exercise to build up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons in that area to help keep the midlle east in check ? __________________ i beat the internet - the end boss is hard Secret Temple of It

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-03-06, 04:58 PM	#23
albed flippin 'em off Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the real world Posts: 3,231	I love pea brained liberals who label things they can't comprehend "unthinkable". People with higher brain function actually can think about a nuclear armed Iran and thus conclude that it shouldn't be allowed.

07-03-06, 06:40 PM	#25
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	I've read a few analyses on a possible war with Iran and almost everyone who looks closely at the issue concludes that it would be suicidal to invade Iran. Too many mountains, too many nooks and crannies to sweep, and the majority of Iranians lives in the densly populated northern reigion around Tehran, so any fight there is sure to cause massive amounts of collateral damage. Even arial bombardment is risky, and cruise missile attacks, while marginally safer for the population, would not do enough damage. The military option in Iran is very undesirable, and nobody knows this better than the president and his staff. Believe me, Bush doesn't want war with Iran and he won't be pushing for it any time soon. Besides, if we ever looked like we were trying to take over the population of Iran we'd be legitimizing their claims that America want's to destroy Islam. That wouldn't accomplish anything. No, the only way to win is to get Iran to voluntarily give up on its nuclear weapons program through diplomacy. And even though military force won't be needed, an American military presence along the Iran-Iraq border would definitly help our position at the table. Perhaps invading Iraq was the only way the international community was ever going to get Iran to heed its demands.

07-03-06, 11:44 PM	#26
miss_silver Keebeck Canuck Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS Posts: 1,771	Mazer, I hope sincerly you are right on this one.

08-03-06, 03:48 PM	#28
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	oh boy, another war! cool! - js.

10-03-06, 11:36 PM	#31
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	It's just difficult to take that coment seriously. Apologize to the dead soldiers in their graves? Come on, that won't solve our problems. It might satisfy your need to see the president humilated, but other than that what purpose would it serve? I had to assume you were joking or else I would have had to pity you. Apologies are only useful to those who are able to hear them, the families of the soliders for instance. But in my opinion it would only cheapen the sacrifices of the soldiers and deepen the sorrow of their families if they were served with an empty apology by a political figurehead. It's best for everyone if Bush keeps his regrets to himself.

11-03-06, 02:38 PM	#33
albed flippin 'em off Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the real world Posts: 3,231	Keep multi away from the morgues and funeral homes ffs. I still think the U.S. can bomb countries into submission, like Japan, but no-one's got the guts for it anymore. Looks like Iran will be another replay of the 'Iraq sanctions' so all the people who kept saying they'd work if they were only given more time can start saying that again for another 12 years.